From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>
Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAEA1B6E9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  8 Feb 2019 00:13:35 +0100 (CET)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58])
 by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 07 Feb 2019 15:13:34 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,345,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="113255225"
Received: from orsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.240.7])
 by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2019 15:13:33 -0800
Received: from orsmsx161.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.84) by
 ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:13:33 -0800
Received: from orsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.11]) by
 ORSMSX161.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.192]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000;
 Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:13:33 -0800
From: "Wang, Yipeng1" <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>
To: "Gobriel, Sameh" <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon
 <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Medvedkin, Vladimir" <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Richardson, Bruce"
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "De Lara Guarch, Pablo"
 <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of
 Toeplitz hash
Thread-Index: AQHUvghA2VFjkJTRF0apg+C3p5ihJqXVQMIAgAAgbgCAAAI7gP//fGZg
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:13:33 +0000
Message-ID: <D2C4A16CA39F7F4E8E384D204491D7A6734753DA@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1549375057-4211-1-git-send-email-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
 <5937441.0T0pBNs0GK@xps> <af930adb-1b2a-544b-19c1-361430eaf094@intel.com>
 <8657694.f1liP514bC@xps>
 <D6455DCED8CA9B4B940598A7ACF7B9FDB50256E4@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6455DCED8CA9B4B940598A7ACF7B9FDB50256E4@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.400.15
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT
x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZTU0NWQ1NDUtNWU2My00ZGY5LTkwYzYtYzk4YTg5YzI4YzEwIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoib0o5a0RRUVZkVTJTUzdsMXlSMHFrcU1CNnhTYW5hSmZFeVwvXC9XMkthNlVCWUJCcmFXZXZ6czBvUUhzSEJpRWR5In0=
x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.138]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of
 Toeplitz hash
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:13:35 -0000

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for stepping up for the maintaining job.

I agree with you that they are two parts and we mixed hash table and hashin=
g function from beginning. They are actually should be two libraries, but a=
t this
Stage it is not very necessary to change the situation yet I think.

If you trust us, I will definitely consult with you for questions coming up=
 about thash (also other hash functions like crc and jhash to the correspon=
ding
Authors). I will also get more familiar with the code as the maintainer.

Thanks
Yipeng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gobriel, Sameh
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:33 PM
>To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.m=
edvedkin@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruc=
e <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch,
>Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.=
com>
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of To=
eplitz hash
>
>I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from has=
h table implementation.
>
>Sameh
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM
>To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <=
sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
><bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@=
intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of To=
eplitz hash
>
>07/02/2019 20:28, Medvedkin, Vladimir:
>> On 06/02/2019 10:38, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> > 05/02/2019 14:57, Vladimir Medvedkin:
>> >> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> >> +M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>> >> +F: lib/librte_hash/rte_thash.h
>> > I'm not sure about adding maintainership for one file.
>> > You are the author of this file, so you should be consulted during
>> > reviews if you don't catch them by yourself.
>> > But I prefer seeing maintainers as taking charge and understanding
>> > of a full library as a block.
>> >
>> > And unfortunately, it does not work with the script:
>> > 	devtools/get-maintainer.sh lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.h You
>> > would appear as maintainer for all hash files.
>>
>> It could be solved by adding header.
>>
>> In fact thash is not used by other parts of the hash library (instead
>> it could be used by softnic for example).
>>
>>  From my point of view, hash library consists of two parts, hash table
>> itself and a number of hash functions. Hash functions, in turn, can be
>> used for many other purposes, not just for a hash table. Maybe we
>> should separate hash functions and hash table? And if you think it is
>> a bad idea, so be it, 4 maintainers for hash is enough.
>
>I don't know.
>It's opening the door for more split of maintainers areas.
>I would like to get more opinions from other maintainers, please.
>